UPS driver pay and benefits deal in US to be worth $170k a year, firm says • Hacker News Board

Re: UPS driver pay and benefits deal in US to be worth $170k a year, firm says

#111

Post by atraac » Mon, Aug 14, 2023, 7:35 AM UTC

mclion wrote: post #54

jhgfjhgfjhfgjhg wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UPS will have to increase shipping costs which directly hurts the poor with their Amazon purchases.

Your understanding of poor is really different from mine. Here (Europe) poor people don't buy online, they go to the store for food, it's cheaper. Amazon is a luxury, not an essential provider.

This depends on the country. In Poland most people buy online these days, but we all use postage boxes(company called InPost). They have 'boxes' everywhere, in every city, even small villages at this point have at least one, big cities have them everywhere within walking distance. They batch deliver packages to those boxes which is also more efficient and environment friendly, you get a code and can pick it up within 48hrs. They revolutionized online deliveries in Poland, noone wants to use a regular courier or postal services anymore. Having to sit at home, often not knowing when the courier will really come is tiresome. People just pick the package up along the way to/from work, groceries etc.

Re: UPS driver pay and benefits deal in US to be worth $170k a year, firm says

#112

Post by camgunz » Mon, Aug 14, 2023, 10:36 AM UTC

gunapologist99 wrote: post #101

bluefishinit wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever loaded or unloaded a truck? It's the definition of difficult. Do you have things shipped to your house? I think most people would consider that essential in 2023.

> Have you ever loaded or unloaded a truck? yes, but whether I've done substantial amounts of manual labor in past lives isn't really that relevant. Of course, you might be sitting in your chair and think "that looks really difficult", and that'd be a fair observation for someone who hasn't worked in the trades. > It's the definition of difficult. Difficult like "hard work", or difficult like "curing cancer"? Loading…

My dad drove for RPS for years and, like my sibling, can confirm. It's grueling, sometimes dangerous work, and you do it pretty much no matter the weather. Think of a mix of long-haul trucking, professional movers, and the constant threat of being robbed.

Re: UPS driver pay and benefits deal in US to be worth $170k a year, firm says

#113

Post by culi » Mon, Aug 14, 2023, 5:16 PM UTC

MoreSEMI wrote: post #109

culi wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is proven false. When more people are given more money, they spend more on average [0] https://www.epi.org/publication/bp357-federal-minimum-wage-i... [1] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25761/w257... This is why—despite what your econ 101 models might lead you to believe—modern, data-driven economic research suggests that increases in the minimum wage almost always lead to increased GDP. Worth…

If that’s true why not raise the minimum wage to 30$? Why not 100$?

I completely agree! The minimum wage is not automatically adjusted for inflation (unlike the $12.92 million estate tax exemption, the $17k gift tax exemption, etc). If we go as far as to adjust for productivity, then the minimum wage would stand at $26/hr, matching the relative value it had in 1968 — a time remembered as a golden era for the American economy

Re: UPS driver pay and benefits deal in US to be worth $170k a year, firm says

#114

Post by MoreSEMI » Tue, Aug 15, 2023, 4:26 PM UTC

culi wrote: post #113

MoreSEMI wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that’s true why not raise the minimum wage to 30$? Why not 100$?

I completely agree! The minimum wage is not automatically adjusted for inflation (unlike the $12.92 million estate tax exemption, the $17k gift tax exemption, etc). If we go as far as to adjust for productivity, then the minimum wage would stand at $26/hr, matching the relative value it had in 1968 — a time remembered as a golden era for the American economy

I meant to ask if the theory is true, it should work for any number, until marginal propensity to spend is equal amongst everyone. My point being that a theory should be general. One person could argue for 17$ while the other argues for 15$. I don’t see how one would using a general principle would decide which value is correct.